> I think Miles has been pretty clear that he's not advocating we go
> back there, just that the values we have today are not transhistorical
> and we could likely get by with a lot less crap so why say that if any
> other country is going to be developed, they should emulate us (you
> know, long working hours for increasingly less pay, unsustainable
> building and agricultural practices, and we could name plenty of
> others.)
Just because values do not transcend historical boundaries does not make relatvism right.
> well it is hardly a post-modernist idea. if anything it is coeval
> with modernism
Yes, it's present in romantacism for example, However, post-mdoernism is the most pervasive expression of this particular brand of reaction in contemporary intellectual circles.
> in ideological arguments like the one
> we're all engaging in here, and makes it seem like challenging any
> part of western civilization mean chucking the whole enchilada (e.g.
> giving workers more rights, creating more energy efficient methods of
> development, or wondering if perhaps the poor don't necessarily have
> to always be with us.) The flipside being that moving in any
> direction towards an alternative will inevitably result in the
> collapse or the triumph of the forces of totalitarianism or fascism.
> In short, by preventing the more fundamental questions simply because
> it seems like such common sense, it makes it all the more likely that
> no questions of any importance will get asked at all. This is hardly
> the same as saying that we should give it all up and go back to being
> hunter and gatherers.
I'll respond to this later. I'm in work.
Jason.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.